No, TV makers, 4K and UHD are not the same thing

Share This article

Over the last year, the terms UHD and 4K have become so conflated that TV makers, broadcasters, and tech blogs are now using them interchangeably. Let me just say this now: 4K and UHD (Ultra HD) are not the same thing. Yes, as far as the consumer is concerned, there isn’t much of a practical difference — but, in much the same way that consumers got screwed over by “HD Ready” displays, it’s a good idea to clarify the difference between 4K and UHD before things get out of hand.

4K vs. UHD

The simplest way of defining the difference between 4K and UHD is this: 4K is a professional production and cinema standard, while UHD is a consumer display and broadcast standard. To discover how they became so conflated, let’s look at the history of the two terms.

The term “4K” originally derives from the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a consortium of motion picture studios that standardized a spec for the production and digital projection of 4K content. In this case, 4K is 4096×2160, and is exactly twice the previous standard for digital editing and projection (2K – 2048×1080). As you can see, 4K clearly refers to the fact that the vertical resolution (4096) is just over four thousand. The 4K standard is not just a resolution, either: It also defines how 4K content is encoded. A DCI 4K stream is compressed using JPEG2000, can have a bitrate of up to 250 megabits per second (Mbps), and 12-bit 4:4:4 color depth and image quality. (See: How digital technology is reinventing cinema.)

Ultra High Definition, or UHD for short, is the next step up from Full HD — the official name (that no one uses) for the display resolution of 1920×1080. UHD doubles that resolution to 3840×2160. It does not take a genius to see that 3840 is actually quite far away from four thousand. Almost every TV or monitor that you see advertised as “4K” is actually UHD. There are some panels out there that are 4096×2160 (aspect ratio 1.9:1), but the vast majority are 3840×2160 (1.78:1). If you displayed 4K content on one of these “4K” displays you would get letterboxing (black bars) down the left and right side of the screen. There isn’t yet a specification for how UHD content is encoded (which is one of the reasons there’s almost no UHD content in existence), but it’s unlikely to be the same quality as DCI 4K.

A diagram illustrating the relative image size of 4K vs. 1080p. Except 4K should be labelled UHD or 2160p.

Why not 2160p?

Now, it’s not like TV makers aren’t aware of the differences between 4K and UHD — but for marketing reasons they seem to be sticking with 4K. So as to not conflict with the DCI’s actual 4K standard, some TV makers seem to be using the phrase “4K UHD,” though some are just using “4K.” To be fair, it is worth pointing out that UHD is actually split in two — there’s 3840×2160, but the next step up, 7680×4320, is also called UHD. It is fairly correct to refer to these two UHD variants as 4K UHD and 8K UHD — but, to be more correct, the 8K UHD spec should be renamed QUHD (Quad Ultra HD). (Read: 8K UHDTV: How do you send a 48Gbps TV signal over terrestrial airwaves?)

Ideally, though, to regain some kind of sanity and standardization, TV and monitor makers should abandon the 4K moniker entirely and instead use the designation 2160p. Display and broadcast resolutions have always referred to resolution in terms of horizontal lines, with the letters “i” and “p” referring to interlacing (skipping every other horizontal line) and progressive scan (no horizontal lines are skipped). 576i (PAL), 480i (NTSC), 576p (DVD), 720p, 1080i, 1080p — and so on.

Netflix is a little confused about whether it’s streaming 4K or UHD content; they are not the same thing

It is crazy that we’re suddenly referring to TVs and monitors by their vertical resolution. It is crazy that Netflix, after announcing the availability of 1080p streams in some markets, then went on to say that it would soon trial 4K. How does that make sense, except in the heads of marketing goons?

The sad truth is, 4K and Ultra HD sound sexier and roll off the tongue easier than 2160p. Now that CES 2014 is here and there are 4K TVs everywhere you look, it would take a concerted effort from at least one big TV manufacturer to right the ship and abandon use of 4K in favor of UHD and 2160p. In all honesty, though, it is probably too late: 4K is already embedded in the minds of early adopters and tech writers, and dislodging it in favor of 2160p will be difficult.

The good news, as I said at the start of the story, is that there is very little practical difference — and really, let’s face it: 4K is just a name. It’s not like the vast majority of people care about the official DCI 4K spec. 2160p might be more sensible, but the main thing is whether “4K” communicates that a display or broadcast is 3840×2160 — and in my mind, it does.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

4K is fine for consumers, the other names are a too technical mashup of letters and numbers. Keep that to more technical enviroments.

havor

I find 1080p, 2160p and 4320p no more difficult then the UHD, 4K, 4k UHD or 8K UHD terms, and actually i find them more logical then UHD terms.

And even my dad, a firs class techno n00b, understands the differences between 720p and 1080p more then HD, Full HD and HD Ready.

So i would prefer if manufactures would stop using confusing names and just use one simple strait forward naming.

spoffle

Than, not then.

tedthornton

Oh God. This is so awkward. Just stop. Staaaaaaaaaaahhp. What you’ve done is so 1999. /cringe

spoffle

Awkward? Yeah, no. How do you propose someone learns from their mistakes if it’s somehow strange, “awkward” and “so 1999″ to point them out?

tedthornton

[sigh] Okay. I didn’t realize you had no idea about autocorrect and people posting on phones. Here’s the thing — people do. If you see such a diction error, JUST LET IT GO. They’re posting from a PHONE, son.

How do you not get this? They said “manufactures” as well. The whole post is entirely in lowercase. “strait” should also be a screaming clue. They want the idea out there, and you’re scouting for diction errors to fix.

/POWERCRINGE

Michael F

But the names (4K, HD, FHD, UHD, etc.) don’t just refer to resolution like the article said. That may be the most important thing they refer to, but the standards are of much broader scope.

standard

Oh, poor consumer might have to learn something before making a purchase.
How about everyone sticks to an officially agreed term so marketing can’t trick and confuse the ‘consumer’ into buying shit they don’t understand? See ‘HD ready’.

Not mad at you.
Mad at common business practice.

alidaxla627

My Uncle James recently got a new black
Mazda MAZDASPEED3 Hatchback by working at home online. you can try here
B­i­g­2­9­.­ℂ­o­m

chojin999

Actually.. “Full HD” was a marketing term created to sell 1080p displays (along with “HD Ready” for selling the 720p ones) The real actual standard it’s just HDTV.

And regarding UHDV .. you wrote “to be more correct, the 8K UHD spec should be renamed QUHD (Quad Ultra HD)”… sorry ?
The UHDV standard was born to achieve 8K 32MegaPixel resolution. Period.
It wasn’t designed for 4K 8MegaPixel resolution.
The 4K resolution was added just like 720p was on HDTV. Nothing more than that.
So technically the 4K resolution would be Quarter Ultra HD .. 32MegaPixel/4 = 8MegaPixel. Just as simple as that. And in fact you need four 4K resolution pictures to fill up an 8K screen.

yes I never understood why call 1080p full HD then have UHD, but I totally agree I think it should be just HDTV 1080, 720 and so on sense HD can be anything above 720 .

mrsatyre

That’s because the UHD standard wasn’t actually a standard when the HDTV format was developed and finalized. There were serious physical limitations in video processing and fixed pixel structures for flat panels and front projection displays which have since been overcome. In any case, “Full HD” is marketing spin, not an official term.

Justin

I thought “HD Ready” back in the day meant the TV was capable of displaying HD (720p and 1080i) images but did not have an on-board HD tuner. My old 65″ Mitsu rear projection TV from 2003 was sold as “HD Ready” for those reasons…

Michael F

Yep HD display, SD everything else.

Heath Parsons

FINALLY!! Someone actually got this out.

TechCheck

The author of this article has his horizontal and vertical resolution nomenclature mixed up. He says “As you can see, 4K clearly refers to the fact that the vertical resolution (4096) is just over four thousand” WRONG. It’s the HORIZONTAL resolution that is “just over four thousand”. Later he says “Display and broadcast
resolutions have always referred to resolution in terms of horizontal
lines…It is crazy that we’re suddenly referring to TVs and monitors by their vertical resolution.” WRONG. The number of horizontal lines IS the vertical resolution. The number of columns is the horizontal resolution. What’s crazy is that someone writing a Tech column doesn’t know these basics.

probedb

Indeed, quite a few inaccuracies in this article it makes you wonder whether any research was done at all. DVD was PAL or NTSC it wasn’t 576p, even though later players could deinterlace and output this for PAL discs.

“HD ready” actually has a logo, or rather two, the author could have found this stuff out just by reading Wikipedia!

chojin999

The DVD standard allows for 480p and 576p progressive content. Not just interlaced MPEG-2 streams.

probedb

Indeed but try finding a disc that uses it. Also he says 576p only, no mention of NTSC streams at all.

Paul Lawrence

TechCheck is correct. In say 720p (1280 x 720) There are 720 horizontal scan lines or rows “stacked” vertically to create the vertical resolution, and 1280 horizontal dots or pixels in each row arranged in vertical columns left right that create the horizontal resolution. So restating it in other terms, in 4K (4096×2160) The horizontal width 4096 is the “horizontal resolution”, and the vertical height 2160 is the “vertical resolution.”

mori bund

Furthermore he wrote:
“f you displayed 4K content on one of these “4K” [meaning UHD] displays you would get letterboxing (black bars) down the left and right side of the screen.”

If I’m not completely wrong, you would get the bars above and below the screen.

pixelstuff

I was coming here to say the same thing. Showing a 4096×2160 image on a 3840×2160 screen would give bars across the top and bottom of the screen. Not the left and right side. Or you would cut off the extra 128 pixels from each side (pan and scan) and not have any bars.

Chris McFaul

Yep, i also was going to comment the same thing, 4k content on a UHD display gives you letterboxing at the top and bottom – because the video has a more panoramic aspect than the display

What the author is referring to is the common aspect ratio for most modern TV broadcasts and video: 16:9. The display resolution 3840×2160 is on a 16:9 ratio, while the 4096×2160 is on an even wider ratio (for a clear comparison I’m just gonna say it’s a 17.1:9 ratio). Displaying a thinner (16:9) picture on a wider (17.1:9) screen means black bars on the left and right (because it’s thinner/taller).

The aspect ratio of 4096×2160 is by no means a non-standard one though. Whenever you see a movie on BD or DVD that displays black bars on the top and bottom of a 16:9 screen, it’s displaying 4096×2160’s ratio.

Chris McFaul

You’ve missed the point

We are taking about displaying 17:9 content (4k) on a UHD (16:9) screen

The letterbox is at the top and bottom because the picture has be squashed to fit on the disply

Xoanon

And letterboxing isn’t even used to black bars down the sides!

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

Nah, horizontal resolution = number of pixels, if you move across a single horizontal line from left to right (i.e. 4096). Vertical resolution = how many pixels from top to bottom (i.e. 2160).

As it turns out, the number of horizontal lines (2160p) is equal to the vertical resolution. Amazing, I know.

OnlineEditor

There are no “lines” only pixels. Your statement may make sense to you but it is very confusing. On an X, Y axis plot, the 2160 is on the vertical axis not horizontal. 2160 is the vertical resolution.

pixelstuff

That is correct. But in the original article you say: “As you can see, 4K clearly refers to the fact that the vertical resolution (4096) is just over four thousand.”

That part is not correct, it’s the exact opposite.

It’s also correct that “the number of horizontal lines (2160p) is equal to the vertical resolution”, but in the original article you say: “Display and broadcast resolutions have always referred to resolution in terms of horizontal lines…It is crazy that we’re suddenly referring to TVs and monitors by their vertical resolution.” … which is effectively saying: traditionally we use horizontal lines to state resolution so it is crazy that we suddenly use horizontal lines to state resolution.

Probably what you meant was to say, “It is crazy that we’re suddenly referring to TVs and monitors by their horizntal resolution. (4K)”

TechCheck

What you say in this post is correct BUT it is not what was said in the Article in the two places cited.

Casey Bassett

you are an idiot…

standard

I love how this is next to an article that uses 4k and UHD interchangeably.

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

Yeah, I was well aware of the irony :) But ET is a tech blog; we have to use terms that consumers will understand. We could start using 2160p exclusively, it probably wouldn’t end well. Sadly!

Guest

Maybe they need to start doing it be4 every1 get deluded by companies

Dozerman

What about just “Fukk 4K” and “4K mini” or something.

Dozerman

Shit. I meant “full 4K”. Should edit it but that was kind of funny.

OnlineEditor

Sebastian, with all respect, you have a few things incorrect in this article. It is a confusing subject for sure. You may need to revisit some of your facts. UHD 4K is 3840×2160, where the 2160 is the vertical resolution. The number of scan lines that scan from top to the bottom of the display. You have this backwards. It is also not correct to compare UHD with DCI specs. DCI allows for different resolutions for native display of two different aspect ratios, 2.39 and 1.85. This is true for both 2k and 4k DCI. UHD is fixed at 1.78 (16×9) but allows for a “4k” and “8k” resolution to fill this aspect.

Your contention that UHD and 4k is not the same thing is a bit nit picky. DCI 4k also has an aspect (1.85) which is not fully 4k. It is 3996×2160. It would be incorrect to say that DCI 1.85 is not 4k, just as it is incorrect to say that UHD is not 4k because it is 3840×2160. You also have the wrong resolution for DCI 4k. 4096×2160 is not a DCI format. That would be an aspect of 1.90:1. DCI requires either 4096×1716 (2.39:1) or 3996×2160 (1.85:1)

Regardless of what it is called, you have some very important facts regarding this subject incorrect and thus your article is misleading and adds more confusion to the conversation. It should be corrected or removed.

tim ramich

There are no scanlines anymore. CRTs are relics sitting in the homes of people waiting for their TVs to die before wasting money on a panel that changes every 5 years. 4k is not 3,840×2,160, it’s a cinema standard, 4,096×2,160. It’s 2160p.

James Tolson

this is just silly, i for one am happy with my 42 inch “hd ready” 720p plasma i bought in 2007 as my main tv.. television manufacturers are struggling to push their latest tv’s as many like myself are happy with the tv they have..

full hd – i never could tell the difference so unless my tv blew up i would not bother getting one, any tv 42 inch or less the difference is minute from where i sit anyway and massive televisions 50 inch or over would not fit in my living room..

3d tv – hurts my eyes and gives me migranes, i hate anything and everything 3d, i only goto cinema’s that show movies in 2d not 3d..

smart tv’s – again a silly pointless addition, who needs them when games consoles provide all the same functionality and more?

4k and uhd? – same as full hd in my opinion, who would need one? and why? it can only need to one thing “scamming the end consumer” with more landfill crap, upping the standards, whats next blu ray 2.0? lol i for one won’t be buying into it..

i don’t know if anyone has noticed how cheap and nasty new tv’s actually are.. they are so thin and obviously “cost reduced” to the point they are almost in the “yearly landfill” category like phones lol.. u cannot even buy a quality plasma anymore, everything is crappy LCD.. also apart from a few HDMI ports their is no connectivity on new tv’s NONE, gone are scarts, components, rgb,vga, composite, even RF lol.. which now means if im ever inthe market for a replacement tv i have to look second hand as my laserdisc player, and retro consoles won’t work on new tv’s….

cwize

“smart tv’s – … pointless… when game consoles provide all the same functionality…” Really? EVERYONE has a game console? Jeez. And guess what – not everyone’s eyes/brains process vision in the same way. Just because you can’t tell the difference between 720p or a higher resolution does not mean no one can. As for missing connectivity – I don’t expect a new car to have an 8-track player in it, as only a tiny handful of morons keep that dream alive. If you insist on laserdiscs or retro consoles… use a retro display.

James Tolson

erm yes, i stand by my opinion that they are pointless.. and i aslo stand by my opinion about resolutions, most people (here in the uk at least) have televisions ranging from 26 inch to 42 inch, mostly tho 32 inch tv is the norm, and i really don’t think 4k 32 inch tv’s are going to fool the general public into buying them, just for the reasons i said above.. but then i suppose the manufacturers will put on some convincing act on why ppl need 200 inch 4k amoled tv’s in their front rooms to watch standard definition teleshopping lol.. and yes cars should be fitted with 8 track players :-)

Circus clown

LOL this guy “stands by his opinion”…You actually stand by that pointless opinion… you’re not even clarifying how sucking youtubes and facebooks from the wall socket to the TV is any more “pointless” than slapping a videogame box on a table for the same job.
Quikli, u betta “stand by it” like you’re not just being autistic.

John Robin

James, I suggest You get Your eyes checked. My vision is probably average, but the “4K UHD” TVs I’ve seen for blow the doors off my 42″ 720p Sony.

But if You’re content with Your 720p (as I am for now) then that’s a good thing. A man who’s never satisfied with what he’s got is ….well, never satisfied ;)

Danytrance

Have you seen one of this tvs at someone’s home? At yours? Or just in stores? I’ve seen a couple on stores and man! The image is horrible! Sharpness and contrast are way to high, artifacts all over the place. Maybe for those who are you used to watch tv with the picture controls way to high, might look as a vast improvement but for to those who are used to a calibrated image, it won’t look as something that can blow your mind.

John Robin

I’m using a 50″ 4K Sony Bravia as my main monitor at work, along side a 30″ Dell with half as many pixels. 12 million pixels total. Since it’s at work, I don’t know how it performs with video. But the clarity is excellent and viewing angle good. For circuit board layout it’s great. For regular, non-layout use, it’s a bit bigger than I’m comfortable with on a desk, and the setup is otherwise not preferable to the 12 million pixels on 3 30″ Dells that I used side-by-side previously.

I’d like to point out that all 4k Tv’s support a resolution of 4096x2160p. Please research properly before writing an article.

realtebo

Great article. thanks !

preilly2

It’s time for a new, more accurate term for ‘marketing’. How about ‘Planning Profits through Deception’, or ‘Lying for Dollars’?

Alex B

so we used horizontal because wide screen and non widescreens were in use so the same vertical number could refer to two different corresponding horizontal numbers. now with the difference in aspect ratio in the higher resolutions we have 4096×2160 and 3840×2160 so referring to them by the vertical doesn’t make sense.

David Cottle

Wow. Let’s write about something I don’t even understand that makes sense not .I’ve read so much crap regarding 4k it’s depressing doesent make a difference unless the screen is twenty foot or some nonsense when you can quite clearly see it even on a fifty inch screen if it’s showing 4k that is the difference is quite striking I think .things move on not a cheap hobby the old av business but when you’ve got a great film or now even series like game of thrones it’s worth the investment in sound and picture quality if that’s your thing I don’t drink don’t smoke so that’s what I invest my money in some people spend sixty pounds a week on fags . I think I’m getting the better deal.sorry slightly off topic but fancied a rant

Rob C

Thanks for the Article. While I may not agree with everything I really appreciate that some people on the Internet are writing about the important difference between ‘TV 4K’ and ‘Computer Monitor 4K’ (if we could call it that for the sake of this Post).

TV is a Standard set by a group of TV Broadcasters and other interested groups.

Binary Computers work on powers of 2 so 4K = 4K (IE: 4096), those that need to do the Math should.

Why 4K TV did not ‘go completely Digital’ (IE: to 4096), no matter the challenges, I do not know. What I do know is that I would prefer to buy a 4K TV that I could also use as a Computer Monitor.

Just because a Video Card could allow me to output at the same resolution as a 4K TV does not mean that is a great benefit to me. What is the Video Card to do ?, chop off a few lines or rescale the Image — is that what we wanted ?, No.

I guess that means that I ought to buy a Monitor and either find one with the capability to display TV or get a TV Tuner Card and use that to watch TV on my Computer’s Monitor.

I suppose the second option is “better” but it also seems more costly than it ought to be. I imagine that was the idea; just like Digital Cameras are limited (not just because of heat issues) to recording a half hour or less of Video Footage.

But wait. So we (some of us) buy 4K TVs sometime soon because “TV Prices” are bound to drop quicker than “Monitor Prices”, what does that give us; past shows built in obsolescence.

So I figure I want a 4K Monitor capable TV with support for “DCI that supports x265 (yes, five) and 192Hz, 360Hz, 480Hz (and some lessor amount as a jumping point for lower cable Graphic Cards and CPUs). (Note: hope I did the Math correctly, ‘need’ 60fps 3D 4K quadflash DCI – and an update to their Standards for there to be such a thing).

Then we could order NEW Movies direct from the Studio and pay $25 (maybe less) a pop to see it on release day, with reduced pricing as the weeks go by.

That really would not be too big a Technological Leap for Television but (obviously) if we buy a 4K TV today (or next year) then we are ‘stuck’ with a really nice TV that can soon fall a little short of future needs.

Unless everyone is into going to the Theatres and watching a few Movies a week to enjoy 3D. That doesn’t seem to happen much around where I live and we have a few “exceptional” Theatres and a few ‘regular’ ones. People just do not go out as much as they used to (and the extra $10 for Popcorn and a Pop does not help much either).

So I wait for 4KDCITV, or a Monitor with a TV Tuner and an EEPROM to put in (OTA) the final Revision of DCI and x265 (if the DCI Initiative goes for 30fps 4K 3D without pulldown (using 4, or better flash).

I hope I am not waiting 5 years for this.

I suppose the early adopters are hoping they were future proofed for at least 20 years (because “when will 4K TV ever come” and “would you then want 8K”, people are saying “hell no”, are they not?).

So I must be happy with ‘ole plasy — which actually does look really nice. Sigh.

Elias Vasylenko

4K is a generic term and can validly be applied to both standards. This article is straight up factually incorrect. It would be a really silly thing to whine about regardless.

http://www.deepbass.com/portfolio Brad Shaw

UHD is actually quadruple the resolution of Full HD, not double, genius.

Damian Chiliński

imo there should be only UHD available publicly for TV, 4khd is not 16:9 so it’ll be pain to watch 1080p videos. Especially dark scenes because we all know that neither standard TN nor, IPS panel can display high quality black and personally I haven’t seen any PVA based TV (probably because of slow reaction). Due to technical limits IPS and TN are FAR below 5000:1 static contrast achieved by best PVA panels. So these “black” borders must be just awful.

From technical aspects , there are some differences that haven’t got that much of a difference, it’s the way marketers market their products with names and letters that don’t make any sense.

Dimitrios Kirkos

Oh man…. Say NO to another aspect ratio. Why should we adopt yet another aspect ratio, when 16:9 works just fine? Hollywood, crop the edges! Just crop them! It doesn’t matter.

And most content is in 21:9 aka “deep widescreen” aka “panavision” format letterboxed to 16:9, so it doesn’t matter anyway.

PF Ferreira

Why is this article saying too many things wrong and yet making it look like it’s telling “all the truth”?

If you have a wider image (4K) and you want to fit it on a “4K” UHD screen, you’ll have black bars on top and bottom, not on the sides. If it was UHD content on a true 4K TV, then it would be on the sides.

Also, 4K and UHD have the same vertical resolution, the only difference between them is 256 pixels. Does anyone think 256 pixels at the scale of a 4K or UHD screen are that much significant? You’ll only have 1/30 more of the screen on each side (1/15 total).

Yes, I also think it’s stupid to tell people that it’s 4K instead of UHD, but in pratical terms, it won’t really make the difference as it did when the “HD ready” (720p) appeared and people thought it was 1080p. Also, because UHD is exactly twice the resolution (4xArea) it’s better if you have to watch 1080p or 720p content as it has the same proportions.

2K isn’t taller than 1080p as it appears to be on the diagram, unless you keep the 16:9 proportions. It should only be 1/15th wider (same difference between UHD and 4K).

And last: “It is crazy that we’re suddenly referring to TVs and monitors by their vertical resolution” – No. It was indeed crazy when we started talking about 720p and 1080p back in the day but now we’re starting to refer to them by their HORIZONTAL resolution (4K = 4096 horizontal pixels, 2K = 2048 horizontal pixels).

Feresthe Zong

“As you can see, 4K clearly refers to the fact that the vertical resolution (4096) is just over four thousand. “
Stopped reading here. Who wrote this shit?

Luke

This article is a complete waste of space.

T Sheehan

This is actually stated in the manual of my Panasonic 58AX800U TV: they flat out tell you the true 4k resolution but that your TV is actually UHD, and in the industry is referred to as “4K UHD”, and that the industry just calls it 4K for simplicity. This argument and this article is stupid, dead, and just makes the person shouting it sound attention seeking. They’re also nice enough to state the resolution boldly in case you have to manually configure the resolution via displayport to your PC for “4K” @ 60 hz for us PC Gamers.

mrsatyre

“Full HD” has never been the “official” name for 1920 x 1080p; it was made up by mass marketing strictly to help push products out the door. Where do you get this stuff?

ramonzarat

We have been using the height as a standard for many generation: 240p, 480p, 720p, 1080p. It should have been 2160p, period. Beside 3840 is NOT 4K. In computer term, 1K = 1024, so 4K must be 4096, not 3840.

Mike

Sooooo, wait and be happy with my 1080p tv until the price comes down and uniformity is set, gotcha.

Chris

This article makes me laugh cause I have a Samsung 6950 4k UHD. Personally I don’t think it’s worth it right now seeing how there are 8k uhd TV’s out there but in order to get good resolution out of them you have be sitting pretty far back… And rich.

Blake

This article is silly. Cinema 4k and UHD have the same vertical resolution. Calling UHD 2160p is not a good way to differentiate the two, since they both have 2160 vertical pixels.

3840 is not “way off” from cinema 4k. It’s just the 16:9 version of cinema 4k. The extra resolution of cinema 4k has much more to do with the aspect ratio than visible resolution.

It’s that simple. The difference is just aspect ratio. UHD TV makers are not scamming you out of pixels.

Branden Hooper

To whomever wrote this article; vertices means up and down, horizontal means side to side (like a horizon, hense the root word).

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.